One of the things that's interesting about impeccability is that it's a trait that those in heaven will all share (unless you're like Origen and think that we'll be able to sin in heaven). We are told fairly clearly in Scripture that this will be the case: the consequences of sin (death, tears, pain, et c.) will be wiped away (Re 21.4).
What, then? Do we conclude from this that we are no longer really human in heaven? The Scripture is clear that we will have a glorified body (1Co 15.35ff), it is true, but it seems equally evident that this body is not entirely dissociated from our experiences and lives here on earth. Indeed, Paul explicitly calls Jesus the "man from heaven," a man with a heavenly body. Christianity is intensely corporeal and physical.
I do not think, however, that we are given leave to assume that the ability to sin is essential to the concept of humanity. We will be human in heaven, and we will not have the ability to sin. Indeed, this is what we look forward to: how awful it would be to yet fear sin! We all groan with Paul when he writes, "Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" and rejoice with him when he responds, "I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Ro 7.24,5).
If we orient this view backwards on Christ, then, we can gain a clearer appreciation of what it means to be impeccable: it means that we are truly human. It is a grave error to impute to his humanity the fallenness of my own; indeed, it's quite backwards. Just like our personhood is seen most clearly through the personhood of the Trinity, so also our humanity is seen most clearly in the humanity of Jesus Christ. Our reference point has been reseated: it is no longer Adam, but Christ, who defines what it means to be human.
Because he was impeccable, so we have the confidence that we likewise shall be, when we finally see him and are like him (1Jo 3.2), and in him there is no sin (1Jo 3.5; cp. Ez 28.15?).
Showing posts with label impeccability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impeccability. Show all posts
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Impeccability
Yet another theologica-inspired posting here, but one that fits nicely into my own recent studies.
When we speak of Christ, we say that his nature was impeccable, that is, that he had no ability to sin. It is not that he could have sinned and chose not to, but that in fact that it was impossible for him to sin—he did not have a sin nature, and he did not have the ability to sin.
I think those who argue against the impeccability of Christ do so because they think he was somehow "cheating" or that his temptations were meaningless unless he could sin. It may also be that they feel he cannot so well identify with our failures this way.
I'm not sure how well I'd be able to address each of those objections, and answering them is somewhat different than discussing the arguments in favor of the orthodox position, which is really what I'd rather discuss.
It strikes me that the argument against impeccability breaks down eschatalogically because we expect (rightly so) that we will not be able to sin in heaven. This is a part of what we look forward to, to finally be rid of this dying and dead body, to be placed in a celestial one without the capacity for sin.
It is in this we see that we are conformed to the image of Christ; we will be like him in his glory. We will finally be truly human.
It is a depressing view of humanity that sees it as flawed, and a high one that sees in Christ the redemption of humanity, the restoration of humanity to what it properly should be and was created to be.
(Hopefully it's obvious that this is also part of the consequences of "man fully alive." I'm told to look for this in On the Incarnation, too, but that will come later.)
When we speak of Christ, we say that his nature was impeccable, that is, that he had no ability to sin. It is not that he could have sinned and chose not to, but that in fact that it was impossible for him to sin—he did not have a sin nature, and he did not have the ability to sin.
I think those who argue against the impeccability of Christ do so because they think he was somehow "cheating" or that his temptations were meaningless unless he could sin. It may also be that they feel he cannot so well identify with our failures this way.
I'm not sure how well I'd be able to address each of those objections, and answering them is somewhat different than discussing the arguments in favor of the orthodox position, which is really what I'd rather discuss.
It strikes me that the argument against impeccability breaks down eschatalogically because we expect (rightly so) that we will not be able to sin in heaven. This is a part of what we look forward to, to finally be rid of this dying and dead body, to be placed in a celestial one without the capacity for sin.
It is in this we see that we are conformed to the image of Christ; we will be like him in his glory. We will finally be truly human.
It is a depressing view of humanity that sees it as flawed, and a high one that sees in Christ the redemption of humanity, the restoration of humanity to what it properly should be and was created to be.
(Hopefully it's obvious that this is also part of the consequences of "man fully alive." I'm told to look for this in On the Incarnation, too, but that will come later.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)